Many Americans may be accustomed to hearing the term "same-sex marriage" in news reports about homosexual unions, but now the New York Times is also referring to traditional matrimony as "opposite-sex marriage."

In his Oct. 26 news report on a homosexual lawsuit to overturn California's Proposition 8 reserving marriage for a man and a woman, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak described traditional unions as "opposite-sex marriage."

Referring to attorney
Charles J. Cooper, who is pressing the case against recognition of homosexual marriage, Liptak wrote, "The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order 'to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.'"

Catholic League president Bill Donohue pointed out that the New York Times has used the term "opposite-sex marriage" 10 times in the past, and in a news story only five times. He also noted that the term was used on a few occasions in the 1990s by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Yale Law Journal and the New Republic.

"Is this the start of one more round of corrupting the English language?" Donohue asked in an editorial on the Catholic League website.

He said use of the term reveals a distressing pattern.

"Here's how it will play out in the classroom: kindergartners will be told that some adults choose same-sex marriage and some choose opposite-sex marriage," Donohue wrote. "There is no moral difference – it's just a matter of different strokes for different folks. Not mentioned, of course, will be that some male-on-male sex practices are dangerous. Nor will it be pointed out that only so-called opposite-sex marriages are capable of reproducing the human race.

"In other words, the kids will be lied to about what nature ordains."

While Donahue acknowledged that politicization of language is nothing new, he called the New York Times example "particularly disturbing."

"Marriage means one thing, and attempts to make it a smorgasbord are pernicious," he said.

Fake rainbow fag flag heteros now call their girlfriend/boyfriend "my partner" in order to make homos more comfortable when they use the term.

But of course, why doesn't a male queer just say, "my boyfriend" or "my husband" if they believe their equality bullshit? They say "partner" to thin end the wedge and normalize, and the fake rainbow heteros help them.

Whenever you see a so-called "rainbow flag" remember to say, "That's not a real rainbow. Is that the colors of a rainbow you see in Nature? (ask a kid if there's one around, the kid will say no) That's right. That's a rainbow infected with AIDS."

Officers have been advised to use the phrase 'multi-perpetrator rape' when describing sex attacks

Politically correct Scotland Yard chiefs have stopped using the term 'gang rape' because it is too 'emotive', the Mail can reveal.

Instead officers have been advised to use the long-winded phrase 'multi-perpetrator rape' when describing sex attacks involving three or more culprits.

Critics branded the move by the Metropolitan Police an 'affront' to the victims of appalling sex crimes and are preparing to launch a campaign on the issue.

Six years ago the Met was at the centre of a similar row over its choice of language to describe 'gang rapes' after a senior officer referred to them as 'group rapes' during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Some community activists had previously suggested the phrase 'gang rape' had racist connotations.

Details of the latest police terminology are contained in an official Scotland Yard report which reveals a sharp increase in the number of gang rapes in the capital.

New figures revealed there were 93 gang sex attacks in the financial year 2008-9, compared with 71 in 2003-2004.
Meanwhile the age of victims has fallen with 64% aged 19 or younger in the last financial year compared with 48% in 1998-9.

Detective Chief Inspector Mark Yexley admits in his report on 'Multi-Perpetrator Rape and Youth Violence' for the Metropolitan Police Authority that the 'common parlance for this offence is ‘gang’ rape'.

But he adds: 'This is an emotive term - but it is used widely in the public domain. There have been instances in the past where the term ‘gang’ has come to mean different things - either groups known to each other, criminal networks or peer groups.

'Care has been taken with the definition of the term ‘gang’ in this paper. It is however accepted that there is a public perception/understanding of what this term means.

Recent academic studies have suggested that the term ‘Multiple Perpetrator Rape’ should be used as the overarching term for offences involving two or more perpetrators.

'When examining rapes committed by multiple perpetrators, it should be noted that the number of offenders involved and the methods used by assailants, vary. Analysis on such offending is primarily based on victim testimony and any other supporting evidence, so links to ‘gangs’ cannot necessarily be established.

'These offences are complex in nature, ranging from allegations of consensual sex between the victims and a known party followed by non-consensual assaults committed by associates, to stranger attacks involving large groups.'

Chrissie Maher, founder of Plain English Campaign, told the Mail: 'I am disgusted to my very bones and weep for the victims of gang rape. I don’t usually approve of ‘four-letter words’ but there is no better way of defining gang rape. Ask the public if they need an academic study to work that out.

'Jargon has been used to hide and confuse all sorts of things, that’s why Plain English Campaign was started. But using jargon clean up crime is the last thing I ever expected to see.

'Ask any victim - rape is an emotive crime – it deserves an emotive term not some sterile, politically correct nonsense. This doesn’t deserve a Golden Bull award – this deserves a new campaign to give victims the respect they deserve.'

There have been a series of high-profile convictions of teenagers for gang rapes in the capital over the past year. Two men who assaulted a girl aged 16 and doused her in caustic soda, disfiguring her for life, had their sentences increased on appeal.

In another case a 14-year-old girl was repeatedly raped "as punishment" by nine members of a Hackney gang because she had "insulted" their leader.

A meeting of the MPA, the Met's board of governors, heard levels of gang rape are linked to overall youth violence.

MPA member Jennette Arnold said some offenders are from cultural backgrounds where rape is more common. She said the crime is seen by some as a "weapon of war" and more work needs to be done to get into the minds of culprits.

Mrs Arnold said: 'It has got to be regretted that the increase in black victims has doubled.'

Commander Simon Foy, who leads the Met's homicide and serious crime command, said there is no doubt the "abhorrent" crime of 'multi-perpetrator rape' is under-reported.

He said: 'This is a phenomenon we are all concerned about. There is a substantial amount of this type of offending going on which we do not necessarily know much about.

'The numbers we do have are relatively small. That makes it difficult to understand the trends and behaviours that are going on.'

A Scotland Yard spokesman said the decision to use the term 'multi-perpetrator rape' was made by DCI Yaxley after he saw the findings of academic studies.

[First use i've seen of redistribution of speech. The implication being that free speech is like money, and white males are hogging it, and minorities deserve a much larger share. The concept doesn't work logically, but propagandawise it fits established socialist rhetoric. Yet another way to limit and destroy free speech by keeping but redefining the term.]

Kagan Argued for Government 'Redistribution of Speech'
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

Applause for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at the White House on Monday, May 10, 2010. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

The first part of this framework involves restrictions that appear neutral, such as campaign finance laws, but in practice amount to an unconstitutional restriction. Kagan wrote that the effect of such legislation can be taken as evidence of improper motive because such motives often play a part in bringing the legislation into being.

“The answer to this question involves viewing the Buckley principle [that government cannot balance between competing speakers] as an evidentiary tool designed to aid in the search for improper motive,” Kagan wrote. “The Buckley principle emerges not from the view that redistribution of speech opportunities is itself an illegitimate end, but from the view that governmental actions justified as redistributive devices often (though not always) stem partly from hostility or sympathy toward ideas or, even more commonly, from self-interest.”

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.

The U.S. Supreme Court (AP File Photo/Evan Vucci)
She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity.

She argues in the piece that a law banning fires in public places is not unconstitutional, even if it means that protesters cannot burn flags in public. A law outlawing flag burning protests, however, would be, because the motive is to stop a particular protest.

Kagan also argued that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with maintaining or protecting any marketplace of ideas because it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace, contending that other types of laws, such as property laws, can also affect the structure of the marketplace of ideas and that a restriction on speech may “un-skew” the market, rather than tilt it unfavorably.

“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.

Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.

While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words.

The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality -- making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.

“But the government may not treat differently two ideas causing identical harms on the ground that thereby conveying the view that one is less worthy, less valuable, less entitled to a hearing than the other,” she wrote. “To take such action -- in effect, to violate a norm of ideological equality -- would be to load the restriction of speech with a meaning that transcends the restriction's material consequence.”

The left’s project to rejigger the language according to its political agenda continues to pick up steam with the mainstream media which is on board. The latest symptom is USA Today falling in line with the Associated Press decision to drop the phrase “illegal immigrant” from its Stylebook of usage.

The campaign to censor the phrase “illegal immigrant” has been going on since at least 2010. The following clip of Tucker Carlson’s comments is date Dec 28, 2010.

Here are a few examples of redefining reality for political reasons:

• The assault by invasive Muslims on the facts which appear in the news has been acute. Critics of hostile Islam and its daily murders in the name of Allah are said to display Islamophobia, as if recognition of a profound threat to our way of life is a mental disorder. The encroachment of sharia speech restrictions as part of the left’s wide-ranging agenda of political correctness is a huge danger to our liberty. The recent sale of Al Gore’s CurrentTV network to Al Jazziera will certainly bring a more positive view of Islam to American viewers.

Plus, the recent banning of the word “Islamist” by AP is a bad sign. The word was used to designate sharia-pushing jihadists and differentiate them from their less-bloodthirsty brethren. But CAIR complained about negative words referring to Islam, so AP folded like a cheap lawn chair.

• “Gay marriage” is a political creation to poke conservatives in the eye. Almost no one objected to domestic partnerships for gay couples. But dragging in the institution of marriage was perfect for bashing religious people who have strongly felt beliefs about the meaning of marriage. The idea of gay marriage is gaining traction, a tribute to the propaganda skills of the left and its partners in the press, even though this so-called “human right” was never discussed 30 years ago.

Watch for “marriage equality” to expand soon to include polygamy, one of the most misogynous practices ever.

• The much-promoted idea that “Diversity is our strength” is a denial of human nature, which is deeply tribal. People normally prefer the comfort and safety of their own cultural group. Media and schools promote diversity as a plus precisely because it is unnatural not to see a foreign tribe as a danger. Group identity is hard wired in our species.

The censorship of “illegal immigrant” is designed to blur the idea of illegal alien foreigners stealing American jobs. The press wants us to see them as family people who moved to the United States in search of a better life, no big deal even with 20 million citizens unable to find full time work and 90 million out of the labor force in the current jobless “recovery.”

Another news organization has revised its editorial style on immigration terminology. USA Today, according to a memo obtained by Jim Romenesko, will stop using the term “illegal immigrant” unless it is used in a direct quote.

“The term illegal immigration is acceptable, but do not label people as illegal immigrants, except in direct quotes,” William Coon wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday evening. “Undocumented immigrant, undocumented worker and unauthorized immigrant are acceptable terms — depending on accuracy, clarity and context — for foreign nationals who are in the country illegally. An alternative is to use a phrase such as “people who entered the U.S. illegally” or “living in the country without legal permission.”

USA Today’s decision comes on the heels of a similar move by the Associated Press, which dropped the phrase from its stylebook earlier this month.

Looking for a home in the DC area? It's likely you will be unable to locate a Master Bedroom. Not because it's the newest architectural trend to hide these rooms behind a discrete bookshelf door or to shrink these suites to the size of a pantry. No—the phrase Master Bedroom is being wiped from the blueprints.

A survey of ten major real estate developers in the Washington DC-area found that six no longer used the description "Master Bedroom" in the floor plans to describe the largest bedroom in the home. It's just a matter of time, said Grant Johnson of the ludicrously swanky custom home builder Sekas Homes, before the word is phased out of the industry entirely.

Because of negative associations with the word master—both on a gender level (it implies a male) as well as uncomfortable historical connotations (for example, a master of slaves), architects and contractors are looking for a more accurate and more politically correct replacement.

Surprisingly the homebuilders in Washington DC, a national hotbed for the latest neologisms and descriptive metaphor, did not construct particularly creative descriptions. The current descriptions go as follows:

Owner's Suite
Owner's Bedroom
Mastre Bedroom

Imagination abounding! It seems that the switch-over to an incorrect spelling of the original offending word as well as replacement with "Owner" is more common in high-end listings. A managing broker for McLean's RE/Max Allegiance, Brian Block, interviewed in the Washington Business Journal said:

Quote:

"The terminology has more of an upscale tone to it, particularly in some of the really large homes that truly have a large bedroom, sitting area, enormous walk-in closets, and lavish bathrooms," Block wrote in an email. "Owner Suite conveys a sense of being distinguished, having ‘made it' or ‘arrived' rather than the everyday ‘Master Bedroom.'"

MudbudUgeentonick21L U
IIRC, "Cis" is a word created by Trans folk to describe people who see themselves as the gender/sex they were born as. It's only an insult in some of the angrier corners of Tumblr and should not be seen as an attack... unless it is. Then you may react in whatever way you see fit. Monday 12:38pm

Are You a Bro?: Brocab 101
January 22, 2014 by: Jane Solomon in: In the News, Language 63 Comments

Think back on this: 2007 was a big year for the bro. The famous phrase “Don’t tase me, bro!” catapulted into meme-status, and The Onion published a pristine piece called “Bro, You’re A God Among Bros” which parodied the tendency of bros (or brahs, if you prefer) to create portmanbros like Bromo sapien and brofessional. Over the last half a decade, we’ve seen the rise of bromance (a close friendship between bros), brogrammer (a bro computer programmer) and Bronies (bros that are into My Little Ponies), proving bro is an innovative and useful new addition to the English language.

Whether or not you are a bro might be determined by how you use the word. While bro may carry pejorative connotations, among bros it is often used as a term of endearment as in “Hey, bro. How you doing, bro?” On the Oxford Dictionaries blog, Katherine Connor Martin brings up this metonymic quality of brodom: “by being the sort of person who says ‘bro,’ a person becomes a bro. In the immortal utterance ‘don’t tase me, bro’ it is not the person doing the tasing who is the bro, but the person being tased.” Bros also recognize that the term can be loaded. In a recent interview on Slate, BroBible managing editor J. Camm admits: “There’s still a negative stigma attached to the word bro, [...] But we’re slowly changing that connotation.”

Where did bro come from? It first entered English in the 17th century as an often-written abbreviation for “brother.” By the early 1900s, it could refer to a “guy or fellow” or a “male friend or buddy.” This usage originally surfaced in African American slang to refer to a fellow black male.

Gene Demby, over at NPR’s Code Switch blog, breaks brodom down into four qualities: stonerishness, dudeliness, preppiness, and jockishness (though a bro need not possess all these qualities). Demby asks whether the current definition of bro requires a discussion of race. His informal poll concluded that broness is generally associated with white, privileged men, however, there are exceptions. One Twitterer responded that “It’s about wealth/privilege & often sexist attitude. Not implicitly about race.” For some, maleness is not a prerequisite for brodom either; there are lady-bros (sometimes called Beckys).

While not all bros are white or even male, these presumed descriptions accompany most discussions of bro culture. In September 2013, Ann Friedman suggested that the term bro and its offshoots have taken off so spectacularly in the last few years thanks to the fact that it allows for talk of this particular type of person without launching into a political discussion: “‘Bro’ is convenient because describing a professional or social dynamic as ‘overly white, straight, and male’ seems both too politically charged and too general; instead, ‘bro’ conjures a particular type of dude who operates socially by excluding those who are different.”

In our most recent update, Dictionary.com added a new sense of bro that captured this common usage. We also added a few of the most ubiquitous portmanbros.

(What other words did we add to the dictionary? Here’s a round-up of our favorites.)

What’s the most interesting portmanbro you’ve seen or heard? Does anyone you know call people “bro”? Do you?

Bro is a racial smear leftists use for uppity young white men - ie, young white men who don't act properly deferential to feminists and coloreds, or who hold attitudes leftists hate and would prefer to see made illegal. Racial smears are funny when leftist use them, and not at all hateful, invidious or discriminatory. Since, you know, leftists are tolerant progressive people on the right side of history, as they are happy to tell us.

That's interesting. As I recall "bro" was used back in the day to refer to niggers, especially the ghetto type (is there really any other kind?). Now it has been co-opted by the left as a perjorative against Whites?

I am genderfluid, though I was assigned female at birth, use female pronouns (though mostly out of a lack of acceptable alternative), and "pass" as female 99% of the time (this is not a situation I am happy with). What does this mean? For me, it means that sometimes I am a woman, sometimes I am a man, and sometimes I am androgynous.

That's interesting. As I recall "bro" was used back in the day to refer to niggers, especially the ghetto type (is there really any other kind?). Now it has been co-opted by the left as a perjorative against Whites?

Yes. The left always affects its hate terms aren't racial but social. So you're a racist if you speak the facts about blacks, but they're just objecting to behavior when they denounce rednecks. All leftism is basically a justification of double standards. When they do X it's good, when you do it, it's bad. You see this even in arguments over capital punishment: they don't or simply refuse to make a distinction between murder and death penalty.

'Bro' as used by the left in 2014 is aimed at a specific slice of humanity: twentysomething white males who aren't queer or leftist. White fraternity members are the most characteristic target. Bro is associated with partying and drinking and 'rape culture' and various other leftist sins. Some of the behavior the terms suggests and laments is indeed obnoxious, but that's not what actually bothers the left, since it pushes promiscuity and drinking and looseness everywhere else. What bothers the leftists who use this term is these young white men haven't been cowed. They're high spirited. They don't care about leftist ideology. They're...uppity. White-uppity. And that can't be. They must be attacked until they double-clutch like everyone else. Double-clutch is my term for second guess their natural instincts because they've internalized the leftist moral monitor, aka the neo-puritan witch-hunter

Bro is associated with partying and drinking and 'rape culture' and various other leftist sins.

...and lifting weights/exercising/being active, eating well, dressing well, chasing girls. The last is extremely problematic for the judeo-feminists because White men being straight is a very bad thing. Being straight in public is an extreme offense to the kikenfems.

Niggers and other assorted untermenschen shitskin creatures can drink, do drugs, go after women as much as they like (why all the hush about nigger-on-White rape in the judeo-feminist narrative?). But when White men do it...unacceptable.

"What's good for me (and my allies the muds) is not good for thee (White man - my enemy)."

__________________
"What are they? A religion, a race, a criminal conspiracy?" - Craig 'Chain' Cobb on the jews

Pay attention to the CNN articles on the missing Malaysian flight. There is a white couple, the woman is waiting to hear word about her boyfriend. Every single article keeps saying PARTNER, instead of boyfriend. That is an ideological word change meant to conflate heterosexual couples with faggots and nothing more. Wordsmithing and control of language by essentially making words go extinct from public dialogue is nothing new for the media. They did this in the 1990s also with when they transitioned from Oriental to Asian. I'm old enough to remember seeing a TV news report stating they were going to switch because activists found it offensive. Since then, the word Oriental is not only gone from the media but nearly all of public discourse as well - specifically due to the media's lead.

This is the kind of control people need to be conscious of and not let them have.

This week, though, the American Thinker gave us a real doozy, possibly the winning candidate in the informal anti-Wendy Davis essay contest. In a piece titled "Dreams from My Uterus," Deborah C. Tyler pronounces Wendy Davis not a feminist, but a "gynecist." And what is a gynecist, you might ask? We'll let Tyler take it from here:

Quote:

Gynecism promotes the political position that the primary and most essential power a female can hold is the control of her own sexual and genital functions. Gynecism sexualizes and sexually empowers girls and women throughout the lifespan and insists upon the absolute and sole right of a pregnant female to terminate her own pregnancy at any point. Some gynecists believe infanticide is also the right of the mother.

Contrary to these anti-White critics, it's right to ask for proof of good faith before cooperating with people (especially nowadays). For instance: Do you want me to weep over blacks getting shot in Chicago? Then first cry over Whites getting murdered in South Africa. If you do that—if you prove your good faith in that way—then I will spare a tear for the Chicago situation. My attitude is: if you want my cooperation, then offer me something upfront, otherwise fuck off.

"Whataboutism" is what they call our demand for reciprocity upfront, in other words for respect. They are outraged by any suggestion of our equality with them. "How dare you mention your tragedy when I am pointing out mine, which takes precedence infinite times more than does anything you care about," is their position. The reason anti-Whites won't reciprocate—the reason they want it all one way, their way—is that most of them are jews, and jews don't consider Whites to be human. One doesn't reciprocate animals or insects, one just uses them. That's how they see us.